Podcasts about judith jarvis thomson

More at https://www.philosophytalk.org/shows/judith-jarvis-thomson. Judith Jarvis Thomson is best known for arguing that abortion is morally permissible, even granting the fetus the status of person. Her colorful thought experiments illustrate that a right to life does not mean the right to use another person's body to survive. So, what exactly is a right to life and what does it permit or prohibit? Does pregnancy come with certain moral obligations to the fetus? And how can thought experiments, like the Trolley Problem, shed light on these questions? Josh and Ray explore Thomson's life and thought with Elizabeth Harman from Princeton University, author of "When to Be a Hero" (forthcoming).

Interviewer: MATTHEW ROTH. Since it was overturned in 2022, Roe v. Wade has continued to represent to many what the restoration of abortion rights would look like. As philosopher BERTHA ALVAREZ MANNINEN has long pointed out, however, Roe itself was vulnerable to challenges from the fetal personhood movement. Two years before Roe, on the other hand, an essay by Judith Jarvis Thomson presented a defense of abortion robust enough to withstand the claims of fetal personhood in an essay that is both famous and strangely ignored in the legal wranglings over abortion. In her discussion with historian Matthew Roth, Manninen describes the strengths and potential weaknesses of Thomson's argument, how it differs from the conceptual underpinnings of Roe, and why we should treat both fetal personhood and bodily autonomy seriously in the post-Dobbs (and now Trump 2.0) world. Manninen is the author of numerous articles and books, including Civil Dialogue on Abortion, co-authored with pro-life philosopher Jack Mulder, Jr.

In this episode, I present Judith Jarvis Thomson's Trolley Problem, perhaps the most famous philosophical dilemma ever devised. Please consider donating to one of the following organizations: Palestinian Children's Relief Fund: https://pcrf1.app.neoncrm.com/forms/general United Nations Relief and Works Agency: https://donate.unrwa.org/gaza/~my-donation Middle East Children's Alliance: https://secure.everyaction.com/1_w5egiGB0u0BAfbJMsEfw2 X: @DavidGuignion IG: @theory_and_philosophy TikTok: @theoryphilosophy

Chapter 1 What's The Trolley ProblemThe Trolley Problem is a thought experiment that was first introduced by the philosopher Philippa Foot in 1967 and later popularized by the philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson. However, there is no known association of this problem with Thomas Cathcart.The Trolley Problem presents a moral dilemma concerning the ethics of killing one person to save several others. The classic scenario involves a trolley hurtling down a track towards five people who are tied up and cannot move. The person facing the dilemma has the option to divert the trolley onto another track, but there is one person tied up on that track as well. The question is whether it is morally justifiable to sacrifice one life to save five.This thought experiment raises fundamental debates about the value of individual lives, the role of intention and action, and the concept of utilitarianism versus deontology in ethical decision-making. It has been extensively discussed in philosophy and psychology, exploring various scenarios, different factors that influence decision-making, and the moral reasoning behind the choices people make.While Thomas Cathcart has written books on philosophy and humor, there is no specific connection to The Trolley Problem in his works.Chapter 2 Is The Trolley Problem A Good BookThe Trolley Problem by Thomas Cathcart is a well-received book that explores ethical dilemmas and moral reasoning in a humorous and thought-provoking way. It presents various hypothetical scenarios, including the famous trolley problem, and engages readers in examining their own ethical judgments. If you are interested in philosophy and enjoy books that challenge your thinking, it could be a good book for you. However, it ultimately depends on your personal preferences and interests.Chapter 3 The Trolley Problem SummaryThe Trolley Problem, written by Thomas Cathcart, explores the ethical dilemma posed by a hypothetical situation involving a trolley and the potential harm it could cause to individuals involved. The problem presents a scenario where a trolley is heading down a track and is about to hit five people tied to the track. The reader is then given two options: either do nothing and let the trolley hit the five people, or switch the track to an alternate route where only one person is tied. The question is whether it is morally acceptable to sacrifice one life to save five.Cathcart delves into the philosophical and ethical considerations that arise from this thought experiment. He explores various viewpoints and arguments that individuals might have in responding to the scenario. Some argue that switching the track to the one person is morally justifiable as it leads to the least amount of harm overall. Others stress the sanctity of life and argue that intentionally causing harm, even for the greater good, is morally wrong.Throughout the essay, Cathcart discusses the utilitarian perspective, which focuses on maximizing overall well-being and minimizing harm. He also explores the deontological viewpoint, which emphasizes moral duties and the inherent value of human life. Cathcart highlights the tension and moral conflicts that arise from these different perspectives.Ultimately, the Trolley Problem serves as a moral puzzle, challenging readers to reflect on their own ethical beliefs and how they would respond in a similar situation. Cathcart's essay encourages readers to think critically about the various moral implications and engage in a deeper understanding of ethics and decision-making.Chapter 4 The Trolley Problem AuthorThomas...

Listen up you sicko bulletheaded freaks - if your gonna aim that got dang gun at me, ya ought have a good reason. With the help of our home girl Judith Jarvis Thomson, the Trashcats are gonna figure out which aggressors can eat a rocket. New episodes every Wednesday on Itunes, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcast fix! ⁠⁠website⁠⁠ / ⁠⁠insta⁠⁠ / ⁠⁠facebook⁠⁠

Callers ask me about toxicity on the Left, the Twitter Files, Ana Kasparian, how to pick your battles in arguments, Judith Jarvis Thomson's abortion essay, Norman Finkelstein's take on Philip Roth's novel American Pastoral, Philippa Foot, Kant's Categorical Imperative, and more. This was a very good time. Download the Callin app for iOS and Android to listen to this podcast live, call in, and more! Also available at callin.com

https://youtu.be/FllJ0lKnEdg My case for pacifism, to recap, comes down to three simple premises. The first two are empirical: Premise #1: The short-run costs of war are clearly awful. [Empirical claim about immediate effects of war]. Premise #2: The long-run benefits of war are highly uncertain. [Empirical claim about people's ability to accurately forecast the long-run effects of war]. These empirical claims imply pacifism when combined with a bland moral premise: Premise #3: For a war to be morally justified, the expected long-run benefits have to substantially exceed its short-run costs. [Moral claim, inspired by Judith Jarvis Thomson's forced organ donation hypothetical]. Bryan Caplan, “How Evil Are Politicians?: Essays on Demagoguery.” p. 125 Full video: Odysee Book: In Search of Monsters to Destroy: The Folly of American Empire and the Paths to Peace Christopher Coyne is Professor of Economics at George Mason University and the Associate Director of the F. A. Hayek Program for Advanced Study in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics at the Mercatus Center.

“Usually when I debate on this topic,” said pro-life advocate Helen Alvare, “I feel like I'm behind a podium speaking French and the other person is behind a podium speaking Finnish. There's no common ground.” Part of the reason there is no common ground in the abortion debate is that our pro-abortion family and friends don't understand our arguments and we don't understand theirs. Wyoming Catholic College philosopher, Dr. Michael Bolin allows his students to puzzle over what might be the best philosophical argument for abortion rights: Judith Jarvis Thomson's “A Defense of Abortion” published in the journal Philosophy & Public Affairs in 1971—about 18 months before Roe v. Wade was decided.

In den bisherigen Episoden zum Thema Abtreibung haben wir uns vor allem mit der Frage beschäftigt, ob ein menschlicher Fötus dieselben Lebensrechte hat wie ein erwachsener Mensch. Wenn ja, dann schien das ja dagegen zu sprechen, dass Schwangerschaften abgebrochen werden dürfen – oder? Judith Jarvis Thomson hat in ihrem wegweisenden Aufsatz „A Defense of Abortion“ gegen diesen Zusammenhang argumentiert: Ihr zufolge begründet kein noch so klares Recht auf Leben das Recht auf den Körper einer anderen Person. Literatur: Judith Jarvis Thomson, "A Defense of Abortion", in: Philosophy and Public Affairs 1/1 (1971), S. 47–66

https://youtu.be/K5FagNGtif8 “My case for pacifism, to recap, comes down to three simple premises. The first two are empirical: Premise #1: The short-run costs of war are clearly awful. [Empirical claim about immediate effects of war]. Premise #2: The long-run benefits of war are highly uncertain. [Empirical claim about people's ability to accurately forecast the long-run effects of war]. These empirical claims imply pacifism when combined with a bland moral premise: Premise #3: For a war to be morally justified, the expected long-run benefits have to substantially exceed its short-run costs. [Moral claim, inspired by Judith Jarvis Thomson's forced organ donation hypothetical].” Excerpt From: Bryan Caplan. “How Evil Are Politicians?: Essays on Demagoguery.” p. 125 Joseph Solis-Mullen is a political scientist and graduate student in the economics department at the University of Missouri. An independent researcher and journalist, his work can be found at the Ludwig Von Mises Institute, Eurasian Review, Libertarian Institute, Journal of the American Revolution, Antiwar.com, and the Journal of Libertarian Studies. Find Joseph Solis-Mullen here: Article archive at the Mises Institute The Fake China Threat and Its Very Real Danger Video imagery from the Vital Dissent with Patrick MacFarlane podcast Book discussed, The Great Powers BitChute Archive Spotify

Jenny Hansen joins us to cover "On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion" by Mary Anne Warren (1973), with more thoughts on "A Defense of Abortion" (1971) by Judith Jarvis Thomson. Get more at partiallyexaminedlife.com. Visit partiallyexaminedlife.com/support to get ad-free episodes and tons of bonus discussion including a supporter-exclusive Nightcap discussion of representation on our episodes: Is having a woman join us essential for a topic like this? Sponsor: Get 10% off a month of therapy at BetterHelp.com/partially.

Continuing on Judith Jarvis Thomson's "A Defense of Abortion" (1971), plus Don Marquis' "Why Abortion is Immoral" (1989) and a summary of Mary Anne Warren's "On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion" (1973), which we'll continue next week in part three with Jenny Hansen. Get more at partiallyexaminedlife.com. Visit partiallyexaminedlife.com/support to get ad-free episodes and tons of bonus discussion.

We discuss widely read papers about abortion, including an excerpt from Roe v. Wade (1973) and Judith Jarvis Thomson's "A Defense of Abortion" (1971). Get more at partiallyexaminedlife.com. Visit partiallyexaminedlife.com/support to get ad-free episodes and tons of bonus discussion.

https://youtu.be/zJCEQRVgUTs My case for pacifism, to recap, comes down to three simple premises. The first two are empirical: Premise #1: The short-run costs of war are clearly awful. [Empirical claim about immediate effects of war]. Premise #2: The long-run benefits of war are highly uncertain. [Empirical claim about people's ability to accurately forecast the long-run effects of war]. These empirical claims imply pacifism when combined with a bland moral premise: Premise #3: For a war to be morally justified, the expected long-run benefits have to substantially exceed its short-run costs. [Moral claim, inspired by Judith Jarvis Thomson's forced organ donation hypothetical]. Bryan Caplan, “How Evil Are Politicians?: Essays on Demagoguery.” p. 125 Dr. Bryan Caplan is a Professor of Economics at George Mason University and New York Times bestselling author. Buy Caplan's new book, How Evil Are Politicians? on Amazon. Follow Caplan on Substack here. BitChute Flote Archive Spotify

"A pregnant woman was going down to the Planned Parenthood clinic in Jericho, PA, and fell into the hands of robbers, who stole her purse with her cell phone, her money, and credit cards, leaving her dazed by the side of the road..." -Margaret Kamitsuka There's a lot of bad Christian theology out there trying to restrict people's rights, but what if a pro-choice perspective is actually the MOST Christian stance. How does a Christian ethic of care, hospitality and kénosis actually make a stronger argument for pro-choice than anti-choice postures? What does our experience of God say? Church tradition? Reason? What does the BIBLE say? (spoiler alert... it doesn't look great for the anti-choice extremists...) As last week, if you didn't wake up today wanting to listen to two cis white guys talk about abortion, DONATE to Planned Parenthood or local abortion funds and then take a listen to some other voices: Six Must-Listen Podcast Episodes on Abortion Rights Hosted by Women Hi I'm a Pro-choice Christian! This Pro-Choice Pastor has a Word for Anti-abortion Christians Sources: Balmer, Randall. The Real Origins of the Religious Right. 2014. Bellinger, Charles. Review: Abortion and the Christian Tradition: A Pro-Choice Theological Ethic. 2020. d'Almeida, Luís Duarte. "Fundamental Legal Concepts: The Hohfeldian Framework". 2016. Genesis 2:7, Exodus 21:22-23, Numbers 5:11-31. The Bible. New International Version. 1973. Glenza, Jessica. ‘Historical accident': how abortion came to focus white, evangelical anger. 2021. Judith Jarvis Thomson. "A Defense of Abortion". 1971. Kamitsuka, Margaret. Abortion and the Christian Tradition: A Pro-Choice Theological Ethic. 2019. Lymer, Jane. "Maternal Hospitality, Ethics and Ontology". 2016. OllieGarkey. "Bible: Life Begins at Breath, Not Conception". 2014. Tobiah. "'Pro-Life' is Anti-Biblical". 2022.

In which Phineas explains to Cee how one the recent decisions from the Supreme Court affects her uterus, and what exactly they said because, to quite Brett Kavanaugh's diary I assume, "You can't read if you have a uterus because they go where your eye balls should be." The episode starts off with Phineas glossing over Judith Jarvis Thomson's violist argument and Philippa Foot's Doctrine of Double Effect essay to say where he's coming from and why the 'women's bodily autonomy' fails before getting into the truly stupid things that Samuel Alito said. Sources: The decision: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf The Vox article: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/23167397/abortion-public-opinion-polls-americans  The abortion statistics: https://www.aecf.org/blog/child-welfare-and-foster-care-statistics https://nacac.org/help/how-to-adopt/steps-to-adoption/learn-about-adoption/ https://www.state.nj.us/njfosteradopt/adoption/AdoptiveParentHandbook_5.2013.pdf (edited)

If you didn't wake up today wanting to listen to two cis white guys talk about abortion, DONATE to Planned Parenthood or local abortion funds and then take a listen to some other voices: Six Must-Listen Podcast Episodes on Abortion Rights Hosted by Women Hi I'm a Pro-choice Christian! This Pro-Choice Pastor has a Word for Anti-abortion Christians If you're still here, this isn't a funny episode. But we'll dive a bit into the history of Roe v. Wade and question the ways anti-choicers frame these questions to make the playing field uneven from the outset. Can philosophy help us resist the ways the anti-choice lobby manipulates the conversation? Can these arguments even convince anyone? Can Matt and Joe tie any of this back to Tabletop RPGs? Sources: Balmer, Randall. The Real Origins of the Religious Right. 2014. Bellinger, Charles. Review: Abortion and the Christian Tradition: A Pro-Choice Theological Ethic. 2020. d'Almeida, Luís Duarte. "Fundamental Legal Concepts: The Hohfeldian Framework". 2016. Genesis 2:7, Exodus 21:22-23, Numbers 5:11-31. The Bible. New International Version. 1973. Glenza, Jessica. ‘Historical accident': how abortion came to focus white, evangelical anger. 2021. Judith Jarvis Thomson. "A Defense of Abortion". 1971. Kamitsuka, Margaret. Abortion and the Christian Tradition: A Pro-Choice Theological Ethic. 2019. Lymer, Jane. "Maternal Hospitality, Ethics and Ontology". 2016. OllieGarkey. "Bible: Life Begins at Breath, Not Conception". 2014. Tobiah. "'Pro-Life' is Anti-Biblical". 2022.

Moin, Servus und Hallo, heute gibt es eine kurze Folge zum ethischen "Trolley-Problem" und wie dieses, von Judith Jarvis Thomson entwickelte, Dilemma auch immer wieder in Commander-Runden auftaucht. Außerdem gebe ich einen kleinen Ausblick auf kommende Folgen, bevor ich mich in einen kleinen Sommerurlaub verabschiede. Viel Spaß, euer Patrick aka Shiny Mich gibt es nun auch auf Twitter: https://twitter.com/CommandShiny?t=gJOSIRfIFlMvwgmXnUvXxA&s=08

In this episode, arguments for the moral status of abortion are discussed. Recently, debate over the permissibility of abortion has taken center stage in politics. And so, in an effort to promote philosophical thought in relation to this debate, I survey some pieces that one may want to reference in holding their case —whether it be pro-choice, or anti-abortion. To accomplish this, particular essays written by Bertha Alvarez Manninen, Judith Jarvis Thomson, and Don Marquis, are presented and evaluated. This podcast is showing two papers that directly combat each other, and an article that extends the argument of one of those essays in order to critique and strengthen it.

In this episode, I present Judith Jarvis Thomson's "A Defense of Abortion," an incredibly relevant text even after 50 years. If you want to support me, you can do that with these links: Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/theoryandphilosophy paypal.me/theoryphilosophy Twitter: @DavidGuignion IG: @theory_and_philosophy

This lecture discusses key ideas from the 20th century philosopher, Judith Jarvis Thompson's article "The Trolley Problem" It focuses specifically on her discussion of how adding in villains who create situations of forced choices and make threats would or would not affect the resolution of cases. To support my ongoing work, go to my Patreon site - www.patreon.com/sadler If you'd like to make a direct contribution, you can do so here - www.paypal.me/ReasonIO - or at BuyMeACoffee - www.buymeacoffee.com/A4quYdWoM You can find over 1500 philosophy videos in my main YouTube channel - www.youtube.com/user/gbisadler You can get a copy of Judith Jarvis Thomson's The Trolley Problem here - https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6930&context=ylj

This lecture discusses key ideas from the 20th century philosopher, Judith Jarvis Thompson's article "The Trolley Problem" It focuses specifically on her reframing of the issues and cases in terms of the concept of a right on the parts of the people affected by the choices of the agents in the cases. To support my ongoing work, go to my Patreon site - www.patreon.com/sadler If you'd like to make a direct contribution, you can do so here - www.paypal.me/ReasonIO - or at BuyMeACoffee - www.buymeacoffee.com/A4quYdWoM You can find over 1500 philosophy videos in my main YouTube channel - www.youtube.com/user/gbisadler You can get a copy of Judith Jarvis Thomson's The Trolley Problem here - https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6930&context=ylj

This lecture discusses key ideas from the 20th century philosopher, Judith Jarvis Thompson's article "The Trolley Problem" It focuses specifically on her discussion of the distinction Philippa Foot makes between killing and letting die. This seems to promise a solution to the "Trolley Problem", namely why it would be all right to kill one in place of killing five in the Trolley Driver scenario, while it is not all right to kill one instead of letting 5 die in the Transplant scenario. Thompson argues that this distinction isn't by itself sufficient for solving the problem To support my ongoing work, go to my Patreon site - www.patreon.com/sadler If you'd like to make a direct contribution, you can do so here - www.paypal.me/ReasonIO - or at BuyMeACoffee - www.buymeacoffee.com/A4quYdWoM You can find over 1500 philosophy videos in my main YouTube channel - www.youtube.com/user/gbisadler You can get a copy of Judith Jarvis Thomson's The Trolley Problem here - https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6930&context=ylj

This lecture discusses key ideas from the 20th century philosopher, Judith Jarvis Thompson's article "The Trolley Problem" It focuses specifically on her discussion of the cases Philippa Foot's earlier and original formulation of the trolley problem (including several other related 1-in-place-of-5 dilemmas) set out, examined, and proposed a solution to. To support my ongoing work, go to my Patreon site - www.patreon.com/sadler If you'd like to make a direct contribution, you can do so here - www.paypal.me/ReasonIO - or at BuyMeACoffee - www.buymeacoffee.com/A4quYdWoM You can find over 1500 philosophy videos in my main YouTube channel - www.youtube.com/user/gbisadler You can get a copy of Judith Jarvis Thomson's The Trolley Problem here - https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6930&context=ylj

This lecture discusses key ideas from the 20th century philosopher, Judith Jarvis Thompson's article "The Trolley Problem" It focuses specifically on her discussion of the many variant cases she proposes for our consideration. These include the Bystander at the Switch (which is not the original Trolley Driver problem) with its different permutations, variations on Transplant and Hospital, and Villain-focused variants. To support my ongoing work, go to my Patreon site - www.patreon.com/sadler If you'd like to make a direct contribution, you can do so here - www.paypal.me/ReasonIO - or at BuyMeACoffee - www.buymeacoffee.com/A4quYdWoM You can find over 1500 philosophy videos in my main YouTube channel - www.youtube.com/user/gbisadler You can get a copy of Judith Jarvis Thomson's The Trolley Problem here - https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6930&context=ylj

We had so much to say, we had to make a part 2! Come join us on this week of My Ex and My Future Wife as we continue to discuss the complexities behind abortion. And thanks again to Liz Behlke for suggesting this topic!Episode Transcript Available Here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1L9PXgS2mTh39Mc14DnunKwIAvV4bORJ7/view?usp=sharingReferences-Last week's sources-Nuance and Dialectics-“A Defense of Abortion” by Judith Jarvis Thomson -"Same Love" by Macklemore

This week the Gwartney team talks about two different thought experiments brought up by Dr. Justin Clarke on Abortion. These thought experiments run through the first and second half of the show. The team then analyzes each of the arguments brought up by the experiment to see which one is better in comparison. The first thought experiment is Judith Jarvis Thomson's, A Defence of Abortion. The second one is Don Marquis's, Why Abortion is Immoral. Enjoy the show! LInk: https://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm = Judith Jarvis Thomson's, A Defence of Abortion https://rintintin.colorado.edu/~vancecd/phil215/Marquis.pdf = Don Marquis's, Why Abortion is Immoral Timeline: The Arguments- 1:45 Jarvis Thompson- 7:15 No Requirement to Val- 11:30 Brain 'EM- 15:00 Burden Changing Your Morality- 17:10 Abortion is Immoral?- 21:10 Deprived of a Valuable Future!- 26:35 When Does the Clock Start?- 30:00 Self Defense or No?- 35:10 Val the violinist pt. 2- 47:05 Quote of the Cast: I have a button, if I push it, you die. - Peter Jacobsen

** We're talking about abortion in this episode, and occasionally we mention sexual abuse and violence. Nothing graphic, we promise. But some listeners may find what follows distressing. Be safe. **We're weighing up the arguments of the Pro Choice and Pro Life movements. Perhaps we can convince you that the case against abortion - the pro-life case - isn't as dumb and mean as it's often portrayed to be, and nor does it depend on religious dogma.This episode is sponsored by Zondervan's new book The Global Church: The First Eight Centuries by Donald Fairbairn.LINKS Read Judith Jarvis Johnson's groundbreaking article about abortion, where she offered the violinist thought experiment as a way to illustrate bodily autonomy: A Defense of Abortion by Judith Jarvis Thomson, Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 1, No. 1. (Autumn, 1971), pp 47-66.  Get to know our guest, Professor Margaret Somerville.Read Somerville's book that first introduced her to John, The Ethical Canary: Science, Society, and the Human Spirit Say hi to our guest, Dr Emma Wood. Here's some more info on Professor Michael Tooley, Emma mentions as we speak with her. He wrote a very influential book called Abortion and Infanticide in the 1980s, where he argues that an entity can't possess a right to life unless it has the capacity to desire its continued existence.  Here's the article called 'Reasons why women have induced abortions: a synthesis of findings from 14 countries', published in the journal, Contraception, in 2017. And here are the statistics on numbers of abortions worldwide, from the Guttmacher Institute Here's some more on Professor Peter Singer's argument in favour of abortion: "When a woman has an abortion, the fetus is alive, and it is undoubtedly human – in the sense that it is a member of the species homo sapiens. It isn't a dog or a chimpanzee ... But mere membership of our species doesn't settle the moral issue of whether it is wrong to end a life. As long as the abortion is carried out at less than 20 weeks of gestation – as almost all abortions are – the brain of the fetus has not developed to the point of making consciousness possible." He goes on: "Admittedly, birth is in some ways an arbitrary place to draw the line at which killing the developing human life ceases to be permissible, and instead becomes murder ... A prematurely born infant may be less developed than a late-term fetus. But the criminal law needs clear dividing lines and, in normal circumstances, birth is the best we have." Here's Don Marquis' article that we spend a lot of time on in the second half of this episode: "Why Abortion is Immoral", in the Journal of Philosophy vol.86, no.4 (April 1989), pages 183-202: "The claim that the primary wrong-making feature of a killing is the loss to the victim of the value of its future has obvious consequences for the ethics of abortion. The future of a standard fetus includes a set of experiences, projects, activities, and such which are identical with the futures of adult human beings and are identical with the futures of young children. Since the reason that is sufficient to explain why it is wrong to kill human beings after the time of birth is a reason that also applies to fetuses, it follows that abortion is prima facie seriously morally wrong." Here's a link to the full New York Times podcast 'The Argument' episode called 'Why the Anti-Abortion Side Will Lose, Even if it Wins' (if you don't have a NYT subscription, just look it up on your podcast app - it was published on April 14, 2021.  Watch Paxton Smith's speech from her Texas high school graduation here. Read this article in The Economist called 'Texas's new proposal shows why abortion law is a mess in America', re: the so-called Texan "heartbeat bill".  Here's more on the Mississippi case that will come before the Supreme Court and challenge Roe v Wade, from the New York Times. Producer Kaley found this article really interesting while researching this episode: The epic political battle over the legacy of the suffragettes, in The Atlantic which explores why both sides of the abortion debate see themselves as inheritors of the early women's movement.  Read the paper by economists Janet L Yellen and George Akerlof called 'An analysis of out-of-wedlock childbearing in the United States', Quarterly Journal of Economics, May 1996, which carried this quote (among lots of other interesting insights): “By making the birth of the child the physical choice of the mother, the sexual revolution has made marriage and child support a social choice of the father.”

Philosophy professor Jamie Lombardi joins Ben to talk about "heartbeat bills" and other current threats to abortion rights, and to revisit the arguments in classic papers on the subject by Don Marquis ("Why Abortion is Immoral"), Judith Jarvis Thomson ("A Defense of Abortion"), and Margaret Olivia Little ("Abortion, Intimacy, and the Duty to Gestate"). Jamie is starting a chapter of Corrupt the Youth (https://corrupttheyouth.weebly.com/) at her college and raising money for Garden State Equality (https://gardenstateequality.rallybound.org/JamieLombardi).Independent creators rely on your support to create the content you want!Support Give Them An Argument on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/benburgis. Patrons get a bonus episode every Thursday, access to the Discord server, a “Sopranos” Recap Bonus Episode every month with Mike Recine, Nando Vila, and Wosny Lambre, a monthly Discord Movie Night, and "Discord Office Hours" (regularly scheduled group voice chats).Follow Ben on Twitter: https://twitter.com/BenBurgisLike, subscribe, and get notifications on Ben's channel: https://www.youtube.com/BenBurgisGTAAVisit benburgis.com

Judith Jarvis Thomson was an American philosopher who studied and worked on ethics and metaphysics. She wrote a moral philosophy essay titled A Defense of Abortion in 1971. This has been widely read and discussed on the issue of abortion. I discuss her arguments in today's podcast.

The violinist argument, first presented by Dr. Judith Jarvis Thomson in an article entitled "A Defense of Abortion" published in the journal Philosophy & Public Affairs" in 1971, has long been an argument echoed by abortion advocates and responded to by pro-lifers. Join Pieter and Cam as they walk through the core problems of Dr. Thomson's argument, and how to best respond when you hear it presented in conversation.To help us change more minds and save more lives, check out our Patreon page at https://www.patreon.com/prolifeguys

Clinton and Nathan discuss items in the news. Topics for discussion: -- Famous pro-choice philosopher, Judith Jarvis Thomson, has passed away. --Human meat being grown for human consumption. --An elderly woman in Canada was euthanized to avoid the trauma of isolation by being locked away inside her room for two weeks due to coronavirus. See our YouTube video for links to the news articles. Books mentions on the podcast: Disputes in Bioethics by Christopher Kaczor Visions of the Anointed by Thomas Sowell

Este episodio está dedicado a la filósofa Judith Jarvis Thomson, profesora del departamento de filosofía del Instituto Tecnológico de Massachussets , quien falleció el pasado 20 de noviembre a los 91 años. David y Octavio dividen el episodio en dos partes, que son también las dos grandes huellas que deja la profesora Thomson en la filosofía contemporánea: su redefinición del debate filosófico sobre el aborto y su teoría neo-aristotélica de la virtud humana a partir de nuestras características como especie. Aunque parezcan inconexas, tienen como elemento común el extraordinario rigor conceptual que hace de Thomson una de la grandes filósofas angloparlantes de las últimas décadas.Entendiendo nuestro lugar en una discusión tan sensible como el aborto, en la que la voz femenina es absolutamente indispensable, reafirmamos nuestro propósito de no tomar partido ni reflejar nuestras opiniones personales respecto de los temas que aquí tratamos, concentrándonos más bien en las ideas de los autores que nos ocupan, Thomson en este caso. Con la venia de nuestras oyentes, hacemos este capítulo para honrar el trabajo académico notable de una gran filósofa cuya ausencia es cuestión de lamentar.

Ben is joined by Woke Bros co-host Wosney "Big Wos" Lambrey and Congressional candidate Shahid Buttar. Judith Jarvis Thomson's classic paper "A Defense of Abortion" is revisited in the context of Trump's nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. A deeply strange story about Keith Richards is mentioned in passing while Ben discusses Terry Allen with David Griscom during this week's installment of David's weekly "Outlaws & Revolutionaries" segment.Woke Bros: https://blackopinionsmatter.libsyn.com/Shahid Buttar: shahidforchange.usJudith Jarvis Thomson: https://rintintin.colorado.edu/~vancecd/phil215/Thomson.pdfIndependent creators rely on your support to create the content you want! Support Give Them An Argument on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/benburgis. Patrons get early access to every episode as well as a weekly bonus episode and regularly scheduled "Discord Office Hours" group voice chats.Follow Ben on Twitter: https://twitter.com/BenBurgisLike, subscribe, and get notifications on Ben’s YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/BenBurgisGTAAVisit benburgis.com

In this final episode Robbie asks some impossible questions, meets one of his heroes and unveils his anticlimactic conclusion to why it's so hard to make the right choices. Brilliantly Easy, Stupidly Difficult is a podcast about the choices we make, and the lives we end up living. Join Robbie Dale as he negotiates a specially curated 9others dinner to explore how the choices we make at work, at home - at all - can be the difference between relief and regret. Written and presented by Robbie Dale, writer, snoozer and co-founder of Today Do This. Guest nine: Tom Cledwyn, kidney donor. Bonus guest: Jason Hazeley, writer and musician. Judith Jarvis Thomson's words read by Christy Carlovo. Read more about 9others at https://9others.com

My wife Chelsea returns to Truthspresso to continue a series discussing abortion. Many abortion advocates now appeal to philosophy to argue that "bodily autonomy" proves that abortion on demand should be legal for any reason, even if the unborn are fully human and have a "right to life." Chelsea and I discuss Judith Jarvis Thomson's "unconscious violinist" thought experiment and the case of McFall v. Shimp. We believe these examples do not support abortion. We also argue that "bodily autonomy" is not an absolute truth. Without the foundation of the Word of God and the gospel, secular philosophy will always change and fail. Chelsea holds a B.S. in Nursing from Regis University, a Masters in Nursing from Pensacola Christian College, and a post-Master's certificate in Certified Nurse Midwifery from the University of Colorado. She has worked as a pediatric nurse, has volunteered over eight years of work at crisis pregnancy centers in Colorado and Florida, and has delivered over 100 babies. Chelsea runs the website https://www.crmidwifery.com/ (www.crmidwifery.com) to offer her services. She is opening her own life-affirming clinic this year to serve women in the Denver Metro area. Sources referenced: Judith Jarvis Thomson, "https://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm (A Defense of Abortion)." Cable Neuhaus, "https://people.com/archive/a-cousins-stunning-refusal-to-donate-bone-marrow-leaves-robert-mcfall-facing-death-vol-10-no-7 (A Cousin's Stunning Refusal to Donate Bone Marrow Leaves Robert McFall Facing Death)," People.com, August 14, 1978. ***** Like what you hear? https://www.truthspresso.com/donate (Donate) to Truthspresso and give a shot of support! *****

My wife Chelsea returns to Truthspresso to continue a series discussing abortion. Many abortion advocates now appeal to philosophy to argue that "bodily autonomy" proves that abortion on demand should be legal for any reason, even if the unborn are fully human and have a "right to life." Chelsea and I discuss Judith Jarvis Thomson's "unconscious violinist" thought experiment and the case of McFall v. Shimp. We believe these examples do not support abortion. We also argue that "bodily autonomy" is not an absolute truth. Without the foundation of the Word of God and the gospel, secular philosophy will always change and fail. Chelsea holds a B.S. in Nursing from Regis University, a Masters in Nursing from Pensacola Christian College, and a post-Master's certificate in Certified Nurse Midwifery from the University of Colorado. She has worked as a pediatric nurse, has volunteered over eight years of work at crisis pregnancy centers in Colorado and Florida, and has delivered over 100 babies. Chelsea runs the website www.crmidwifery.com to offer her services. She is opening her own life-affirming clinic this year to serve women in the Denver Metro area. Sources referenced: Judith Jarvis Thomson, "A Defense of Abortion." Cable Neuhaus, "A Cousin's Stunning Refusal to Donate Bone Marrow Leaves Robert McFall Facing Death," People.com, August 14, 1978.

Kyle Blanchette teaches Introduction to Philosophy and Introduction to Ethics at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, where he specifically covers the ethics of abortion. He has also written mainstream articles on the topic for publications such as the National Review and the Washington Examiner. He hosts the YouTube channel "Consistency, Please" and is finishing his PhD in philosophy (in abstentia) at the University of Rochester with concentrations in metaphysics and ethics. DISCUSSION NOTES: During the discussion, Kyle was speaking extemporaneously and followed-up via email to clarify the following point: "I may have mistakenly said that [Judith Jarvis] Thomson actually endorses the claim that the fetus is a person, or has full moral status (and then argues that abortion is nevertheless morally permissible, at least sometimes). That's not quite right. She grants for the sake of argument that the fetus is a person (from conception, in fact), in order to show that this does not settle the question of whether abortion is ever morally permissible. In other words, she's trying to show that the pro-life premise that the fetus is a person (or has special/high moral status) is compatible with abortion being morally permissible--at least in some cases. But anyone who holds that (a) the fetus has special moral status, but nevertheless, (b) abortion is (at least sometimes) morally permissible, will use her line of argument." Links to articles mentioned during the discussion: “A Defense of Abortion” by Judith Jarvis Thomson - https://www.jstor.org/stable/2265091?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents “Why Abortion Is Immoral” by Don Marquis - https://www.jstor.org/stable/2026961?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents MORE ABOUT KYLE BLANCHETTE: You can follow Kyle on Twitter at @Kyle_plz His YouTube channel can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/user/audiophilica Examples of Kyle's writings can be found here: 'Abortion Restrictions Don't Work': A Dubious Claim - https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/04/abortion-restrictions-dont-work-dubious-claim/amp/ How to Evaluate the Effectiveness of Pro-Life Laws - http://blog.secularprolife.org/2019/03/how-to-evaluate-effectiveness-of-pro.html No, pro-lifers are not merely pro-birth - https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/no-pro-lifers-are-not-merely-pro-birth YouTube link to video version of this episode: https://youtu.be/pdIV1OpAUaI

Kyle Blanchette teaches Introduction to Philosophy and Introduction to Ethics at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, where he specifically covers the ethics of abortion. He has also written mainstream articles on the topic for publications such as the National Review and the Washington Examiner. He hosts the YouTube channel "Consistency, Please" and is finishing his PhD in philosophy (in abstentia) at the University of Rochester with concentrations in metaphysics and ethics. DISCUSSION NOTES: During the discussion, Kyle was speaking extemporaneously and followed-up via email to clarify the following point: "I may have mistakenly said that [Judith Jarvis] Thomson actually endorses the claim that the fetus is a person, or has full moral status (and then argues that abortion is nevertheless morally permissible, at least sometimes). That’s not quite right. She grants for the sake of argument that the fetus is a person (from conception, in fact), in order to show that this does not settle the question of whether abortion is ever morally permissible. In other words, she’s trying to show that the pro-life premise that the fetus is a person (or has special/high moral status) is compatible with abortion being morally permissible--at least in some cases. But anyone who holds that (a) the fetus has special moral status, but nevertheless, (b) abortion is (at least sometimes) morally permissible, will use her line of argument." Links to articles mentioned during the discussion: “A Defense of Abortion” by Judith Jarvis Thomson - https://www.jstor.org/stable/2265091?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents “Why Abortion Is Immoral” by Don Marquis - https://www.jstor.org/stable/2026961?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents MORE ABOUT KYLE BLANCHETTE: You can follow Kyle on Twitter at @Kyle_plz His YouTube channel can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/user/audiophilica Examples of Kyle's writings can be found here: 'Abortion Restrictions Don't Work': A Dubious Claim - https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/04/abortion-restrictions-dont-work-dubious-claim/amp/ How to Evaluate the Effectiveness of Pro-Life Laws - http://blog.secularprolife.org/2019/03/how-to-evaluate-effectiveness-of-pro.html No, pro-lifers are not merely pro-birth - https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/no-pro-lifers-are-not-merely-pro-birth YouTube link to video version of this episode: https://youtu.be/pdIV1OpAUaI

Time for another installment of our Better Know a Philosopher serise. We dive into Judith Jarvis Thomson, author of the famous Trolly Problem thought experiment and has an interesting thought experiment on abortion.Opening Invocation:Absurdist ExistentialismHero of the Week:Teachers

Clinton and Aaron talk about two of the lesser known analogies from Judith Jarvis Thomson's "A Defense of Abortion" essay, the example of the burglar and the people-seeds.

Clinton and Aaron talk about two of the lesser known analogies from Judith Jarvis Thomson's "A Defense of Abortion" essay, the example of the burglar and the people-seeds.

Hello everyone and welcome to the Fetal Position Podcast, episode 28. On today's episode, I am fleshing out the details of an analogy that [I think] is unique to me. I haven't heard anyone else make this analogy, so if you know someone that has... let me know and I'll promote his/her work. But if not, allow me to explain my response to Thomson's Violinist analogy, by using my own analogy. I am calling it... "The Fiddler in the Womb" because it's catchy and kinda funny. But it is, more importantly, a more realistic violinist analogy than the analogy created by Judith Jarvis Thomson in her paper, "A Defense of Abortion". For what it's worth, I have already dissected this analogy and concluded that it does not justify abortion in almost any case. I did this during episode 9, and you can find that by going to TheFetalPosition.com/9. For the show notes for this episode, please go to TheFetalPosition.com/28

The discussion of Kant from last lecture continues with a statement and explication of his first formulation of the categorical imperative: act only in such a way that you can will your maxim to be a universal law. Professor Gendler shows how Kant uses the categorical imperative to argue for particular moral duties, such as the obligation to keep promises. In the second part of the lecture, Philippa Foot’s Trolley Problem is introduced, which poses the problem of reconciling two powerful conflicting moral intuitions. A critique of Foot’s solution to the problem is explored, and the lecture ends with Judith Jarvis Thomson’s proposed alternative. Complete course materials are available at the Open Yale Courses website: http://oyc.yale.edu This course was recorded in Spring 2011.

Most pro-life apologists have an issue with Judith Jarvis Thomson's position in "A Defense Of Abortion."  Of course!  They have come to opposite conclusions about one of the most divisive issues of our time.  My quarrel with a number of those apologists has nothing to do with abortion rights or the lives of unborn children.  No, my problem is with dishonesty, made worse since it comes from people who purport to stand up for "truth." Different Drummer: Os Guinness

Episode 30: Judith Jarvis Thomson "A Defense Of Abortion". Full video episode of Ethics and Values, a university course produced by Distance Education at Utah Valley University in the USA.